A View On Homosexuality...

[Marz Blak]

Hi again, PatrickM.

I don't disagree with this 'middle knowledge' construction at all, but I don't think it matters to a being with both omnipotence and omniscience.

That is, the 'middle knowledge' may be non-causal, but the omniscience renders that a moot point--sort of like 'reasonably foreseeable failure' arguments used in product-liability cases.

But it's an interesting thought. I'll think about it some more.

 

[Marz Blak]

Outspoken:

You're missing my point. Well, several, I think, but I want to address one of them briefly (I'm pretty busy today).

You assert the existence of free will. I counter that no, free will is an illusion, but even assuming we could have a sort of practical free will to the extent that our actions are not entirely constrained, they are certainly constrained to some greater or lesser extent, by the laws of the universe as your God supposedly set them up.

Now this being the case, is it reasonable to ask why a God supposedly intending to allow for free will, but only up to a point, decided to set the limits on it where He did? I would say that it is. You, apparently, do not think this exercise a reasonable one to undertake.

But nevermind. I'll get back to this later if I have time. For now, let me take another tack on the entire 'eternal damnation' belief-structure (and please remember that this is for the sake of argument only, assuming that free will exists):

Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, all events in the universe throughout all time and space obey/obeyed His will. It cannot be otherwise, or else He would not be omnipotent/omniscient.

Therefore, in imbuing creatures of His creation with free will, He had to know that some would not believe in His existence. He had to know that some of them would not do what He wanted them to do--no, scratch that.

He's omnipotent, so it's impossible for anything to not do what He wants it to do! By virtue of His omniscience, He would know if anything He was about to eventuate would eventually lead to a situation wherein His will was opposed; and by virtue of His omnipotence, His will cannot be opposed.

So everything must be as He would have it be!

So, this being the case, how could any being be justly punished?

This is how I see it: there is no better way to rationalize doing whatever it is I wish to do than to assert a free will granted me by an omnipotent, omniscient God!

I realize you see things quite differently, but you have given me no reason to believe that what you say is more reasonable than what I say.

If you quote the Bible, I'll just respond that no sane God would expect me to believe all of that!

---------
On another note: would you please rephrase your statement 'Necessity does not imply no choice?' I am not sure I am understanding you properly, both because I don't think this is a correct statement and because I am not exactly sure how it relates to the statement from the syllogism.

 

[PatrickM]

Hello, again.

I am constrained by time, here , but briefly,

That is, the 'middle knowledge' may be non-causal, but the omniscience renders that a moot point--sort of like 'reasonably foreseeable failure' arguments used in product-liability cases.

This may become circular, as it presumes we, like the product, do not have free will. The manufacturer of a product becomes liable in that the product functioned in only one way, the way it was created, but faultily (is this a word?).

We, on the other hand, if given free-will, do not necessarily function in any predetermined way. Although we may be going in circles on this, God created us unique in that He gave us limited powers to make true choices. In the end, yes, events are predetermined in that since they did happen, they could not ~happen.

The question is who is determining these events. I submit that although God's omniscience can see these events, it is not necessarily causal, merely neutral.

But it's an interesting thought. I'll think about it some more.

All anyone can ask for, eh?

 

[PatrickM]

As an aside, God's omniscient middle knowledge include knowledge of all possibilities. And in exercising His omnipotence, based on this knowledge of all possibilities, He chose to create this reality. So God allowed this reality to exist based on His foreknowledge of what events would take place in this reality.

 

[Outspoken]

Outspoken:

You're missing my point. Well, several, I think, but I want to address one of them briefly (I'm pretty busy today).

You assert the existence of free will. I counter that no, free will is an illusion, but even assuming we could have a sort of practical free will to the extent that our actions are not entirely constrained, they are certainly constrained to some greater or lesser extent, by the laws of the universe as your God supposedly set them up.

Now this being the case, is it reasonable to ask why a God supposedly intending to allow for free will, but only up to a point, decided to set the limits on it where He did? I would say that it is. You, apparently, do not think this exercise a reasonable one to undertake.

But nevermind. I'll get back to this later if I have time. For now, let me take another tack on the entire 'eternal damnation' belief-structure (and please remember that this is for the sake of argument only, assuming that free will exists):

Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, all events in the universe throughout all time and space obey/obeyed His will. It cannot be otherwise, or else He would not be omnipotent/omniscient.

Therefore, in imbuing creatures of His creation with free will, He had to know that some would not believe in His existence. He had to know that some of them would not do what He wanted them to do--no, scratch that.

He's omnipotent, so it's impossible for anything to not do what He wants it to do! By virtue of His omniscience, He would know if anything He was about to eventuate would eventually lead to a situation wherein His will was opposed; and by virtue of His omnipotence, His will cannot be opposed.

So everything must be as He would have it be!

So, this being the case, how could any being be justly punished?

This is how I see it: there is no better way to rationalize doing whatever it is I wish to do than to assert a free will granted me by an omnipotent, omniscient God!

I realize you see things quite differently, but you have given me no reason to believe that what you say is more reasonable than what I say.

If you quote the Bible, I'll just respond that no sane God would expect me to believe all of that!

---------
On another note: would you please rephrase your statement 'Necessity does not imply no choice?' I am not sure I am understanding you properly, both because I don't think this is a correct statement and because I am not exactly sure how it relates to the statement from the syllogism.

"are certainly constrained to some greater or lesser extent, by the laws of the universe as your God supposedly set them up."

Not in a way that interfears with free will. No you cannot will yourself to fly, but that doesnt' take away your free will.

"Therefore, in imbuing creatures of His creation with free will, He had to know that some would not believe in His existence."

You have not been schooled in philosphy (or so evidienced by your thought here) so I guess you dont understand it. Let me say it again, you cannot say that nessesity takes away free will. I will get you a name of a book that is detailed in going through this.

"Therefore, in imbuing creatures of His creation with free will, He had to know that some would not believe in His existence. "

No, you have free will. He knows the choice you're going to make because you cannot cease to be you. He knows you so intimatly he knows what you will choose but it does not take away your free will.

"If you quote the Bible, I'll just respond that no sane God would expect me to believe all of that!"

then you have created a subjective paradox and we can end the converstaion. You cannot prove your point based on your a priori so why do you expect me to prove mine?

"I am not sure I am understanding you properly"

1. It is a correct statement to make in the confines of philosophy.
2. You dont' understand it is okay, it takes some abstract thinking.
3. I'll get you that book, he probably explains it better then I could.

concluding fact: Free will does exist and people go to hell because they choose to go there by rejection of God.

 

[Marz Blak]

Not in a way that interfears with free will. No you cannot will yourself to fly, but that doesnt' take away your free will.

OK, answer this for me, if you will: what constitutes free will in your thinking?

You have not been schooled in philosphy (or so evidienced by your thought here) so I guess you dont understand it. Let me say it again, you cannot say that nessesity takes away free will. I will get you a name of a book that is detailed in going through this.

Please do. I'm waiting. You are right: I have no formal training in philosophy;
but so far, I see this as merely a naked assertion.

In the absence of source-material, could you give me an example wherein my actions were constrained by necessity but yet I still managed to retain free-will?

No, you have free will. He knows the choice you're going to make because you cannot cease to be you. He knows you so intimatly he knows what you will choose but it does not take away your free will.

But according to you, He made me. If He made me, then what is the distinction between His not taking away my free will, and His designing me to behave in a certain predictable fashion?

then you have created a subjective paradox and we can end the converstaion. You cannot prove your point based on your a priori so why do you expect me to prove mine?

Sorry, I don't get this. The problem I have with using the Bible as a foundation for this sort of discussion is that one who does usually presupposes its truth with no real empirical support.

Define revelation, please. Or tell me how the Holy Spirit guides readers of scripture to the proper interpretation, or even before that, translators to the proper translation. If you cannot do these things, then all you are doing, in my opinion, is taking a set of unvetted (unvettable?) readings and asserting them to be God's word. Obviously not persuasive, in my view.

(As an aside: it seems to me that one things the Muslims insist on--the immutability of the text--makes a bit more sense in this regard. Less room for error if one keeps God's words in their original text and simply forces everyone to learn the language.)

My arguments here have not relied upon any such presuppositions, unless I am mistaken, in which I would greatly appreciate your pointing them out to me.

concluding fact: Free will does exist and people go to hell because they choose to go there by rejection of God.

Concluding assertion, you mean.

 

[KnightOfChrist]

It's actually really simple. As Milton puts it in Paradise Lost, God gave Man free will so that He did not have to force us to love or worship him. We have the ability to ascend to his eternal grace, but we also have the ability to fall. Kind of like choosing "fries, or cold slaw?" for a side order.

Someone may have already said this, but probably not in the same way.

 

[The Bellman]

It's actually really simple. As Milton puts it in Paradise Lost, God gave Man free will so that He did not have to force us to love or worship him. We have the ability to ascend to his eternal grace, but we also have the ability to fall. Kind of like choosing "fries, or cold slaw?" for a side order.

Someone may have already said this, but probably not in the same way.

God gave man free will...and then tortures us eternally if we choose wrong. Great guy, huh?

 

[BobKat]

I'm with you...personally, I don't believe there is a God cruel enough to do that...
compassionately,
BobKat

 

[Shane Roach]

I have never been entirely convinced that free will exists. Certainly much seems to be for-ordained, which implies a certain lack of choice. I don't believe a lack of choice negates God's ability to judge. It is possible, for example, that God has given us our lives in a situation where we have no choices in order to illustrate some things about what sorts of effects certain modes of thought or certain states of reality would have. He is perfectly able to judge a soul without that soul ever even being allowed a single act of its own because he would know what it would do.

In any event, free will and predestination are complex issues, but do not seem to me to have any direct bearing on homosexuality. Whether any of us have choices or not, homosexuality is forbidden to Christians, and is either something we should choose to avoid, or else is a sign of what sort of soul may be inhabiting a body so that discerning folk can understand certain things about that soul's values, makeup, or whatever.

Incidentally, free will and predestination are no easier to deal with even if one doesn't believe in any God or in Christianity. How incredible that we might have absolutely no choice in the world at all and yet be conscious of our surroundins.... Yet that is a very common belief of some atheists. In the end, it appears to be one of those questions that seems very important and yet ultimately, since we have no way of changing anything about it, is more or less moot.

 

[Outspoken]

[/i]

OK, answer this for me, if you will: what constitutes free will in your thinking?

Please do. I'm waiting. You are right: I have no formal training in philosophy;
but so far, I see this as merely a naked assertion.

In the absence of source-material, could you give me an example wherein my actions were constrained by necessity but yet I still managed to retain free-will?

But according to you, He made me. If He made me, then what is the distinction between His not taking away my free will, and His designing me to behave in a certain predictable fashion?


Sorry, I don't get this. The problem I have with using the Bible as a foundation for this sort of discussion is that one who does usually presupposes its truth with no real empirical support.

Define revelation, please. Or tell me how the Holy Spirit guides readers of scripture to the proper interpretation, or even before that, translators to the proper translation. If you cannot do these things, then all you are doing, in my opinion, is taking a set of unvetted (unvettable?) readings and asserting them to be God's word. Obviously not persuasive, in my view.

(As an aside: it seems to me that one things the Muslims insist on--the immutability of the text--makes a bit more sense in this regard. Less room for error if one keeps God's words in their original text and simply forces everyone to learn the language.)

My arguments here have not relied upon any such presuppositions, unless I am mistaken, in which I would greatly appreciate your pointing them out to me.


Concluding assertion, you mean.

"what constitutes free will in your thinking?"

Well what do you think the definition of free will is?

"Please do. I'm waiting. "

Its a simple (well maybe not) abstraction. Nessensity does not drown out free will.

"could you give me an example wherein my actions were constrained by necessity but yet I still managed to retain free-will?"

Breathe in the next 5 hours. I'll get the name of a book you should read, it will explain it.


"If He made me, then what is the distinction between His not taking away my free will, and His designing me to behave in a certain predictable fashion?"

He designed you to have free will, thus your actions are independant of interfearence.

"The problem I have with using the Bible as a foundation for this sort of discussion is that one who does usually presupposes its truth with no real empirical support. "

then you are ill equiped to speak on this matter from a bibical and christian perspective. It would be like asking you to explain gravity to me without using science or math.

"Obviously not persuasive, in my view."

Again, if you want to get into this discussion, we can in PM or another thread.


"makes a bit more sense in this regard. Less room for error if one keeps God's words in their original text and simply forces everyone to learn the language"

and thus the reason on matters of conflict you go back to the original text.

"My arguments here have not relied upon any such presuppositions"

Yes, you have relied on such presuppositions. You start by using human reason as your basis, which has no basis of proof of its own. Its entirely subjective.

"Concluding assertion, you mean."

No, its pretty clear logically.

1. People do not want to be with God
2. Hell is the place God is not
3. thus they choose to go to hell because they don't want to be with God.

 

[Shane Roach]

1. People do not want to be with God
2. Hell is the place God is not
3. thus they choose to go to hell because they don't want to be with God.

Whether or not this will have anything to do with whatever discussion you are trying to have, I have a bone to pick with this particular oft repeated explanation of free will and damnation. First off, God never restricts himself to having to have provided free will in order to judge. In fact, there is a rather blunt scripture describing just the opposite:

Romans 9:17-23
For the scripture saith unto Pharoah, "Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth." Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, "why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?" Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say unto Him that formed it, "Why hast Thou made me thus?" Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to descruction: and that he might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels od mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom He hath called not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.

There is another problem I have as well. You state Hell is a place where there is no God. Yet, David in Psalms 139:8 writes, "if I make my bed in Hell, behold, Thou art there." Also, I am having a hard time finding it but I thought I remem,bered a scripture to the effect that the nature of Hell is that of suffering God's everlasting anger, not His absence. It's gotten late and I can't keep looking for it just now. *eeps* Perhaps I imagined that last, but still, I think the Psalm and the chapters of Romans illustrate my point more or less.

 

[Macca]

Great job on setting forth God's Law as you glean it from a thorough reading of Scripture.

Now, we are presented with a world in which somewhere between 2% and 10% of the population is gay in sexual orientation. They are unanimous in stating that they did not choose that orientation, but rather discovered it about themselves somewhere around the age of puberty. And they claim that it is not something that they are able to change. (To be sure, there are ex-gay ministries, and some successes, apparently due to God's intervention in specific instances; we have one or two people on this board who have "come out of homosexuality." But in the absence of God's intervention, making that change is not something they are able to do on their own.)

Apparently, from what you're saying above, they're doomed. God so loved the straight people of the world that He sent His only Son that they, the straight folks, no matter how hatefully they treat gay people, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

May I respectfully suggest, Reverend Jim, that your Gospel is quite different than the one Paul and John and Peter preached?

I had a serious drinking problem that I could not stop without God's intervention, does that mean that all who have drinking problems cannot stop without God's intervention?Macca.

 

[Marz Blak]

Well what do you think the definition of free will is?

As I have said, I don't believe there is such a thing.

As someone who posts here (I forget) so elegantly put it (to paraphrase; his statement was better, I think, but I can't recall it exactly):

Actions are either caused or uncaused.
If they are caused, they are not free.
If they are uncaused, they are not willed.
Hence, there is no free will.

Its a simple (well maybe not) abstraction. Nessensity does not drown out free will.

You keep re-iterating. Would you mind restating? I apologize for my obtuseness, but if I say I don't understand something and ask for a clarification, a simple reiteration using more or less the same words usually doesn't work for me.

Breathe in the next 5 hours. I'll get the name of a book you should read, it will explain it.

By this I think you are implying that breathing is an act of will, even though it is involuntary? Something like that? I don't believe this to be the case. In fact, breathing is a pretty poor analogy for you, I think, since it's of a dual nature: it is partly conscious but has an autonomic/reflex/involuntary driver underneath our ability to consciously direct it. In other words, one can only control it up to a point--I've never heard of a suicide by holding one's breath. Have you?

He designed you to have free will, thus your actions are independant of interfearence.

This does not address really address my objection.

I said

If He made me, then what is the distinction between His not taking away my free will, and His designing me to behave in a certain predictable fashion?"

It seems apparent to me that it's practically meaningless to speak of a designer as not interfering with a device he made when he designed certain behavioral contstraints into it, and he knew everything it would do from the time he released the design.

All I can say is if I'm a product designer and I ever have a liability case, I want you on my jury. "Well, sure the defendant designed the product to be unstable, but neither he nor anyone else actually pushed the product over when it fell and broke the plaintiff's leg. The product acted of its own free will--the defendant is not liable!"

then you are ill equiped to speak on this matter from a bibical and christian perspective. It would be like asking you to explain gravity to me without using science or math.

Who said we were to be constrained to Biblical, Christian perspectives? I made a point early in this thread that the title should have been amended to "...according to the Bible," if one merely wanted to argue Bibilical/Christian belief on the matter, but given that this is GA, where Christians and Non-Christians post, a non-believer such as myself could hardly be faulted for assuming the OP was making a prescriptive assertion directed towards those other than Christians, given the title of the OP. I thought we'd settled that matter and moved on to a more general, less dogmatically constrained realm of discussion.

Yes, you have relied on such presuppositions. You start by using human reason as your basis, which has no basis of proof of its own. Its entirely subjective.

You are right, maybe. Indeed, logic is an unproven assertion (although presupposing only the practical reality of our own perceptions, I think you would agree with me that there is a lot of empirical evidence to back up the notion that it works as a matter of practice).

But then, so is solipsism.

That tells you pretty much what I think of your argument, I think.

1. People do not want to be with God

Not believing God exists is not at all the same as believing God exists and rejecting Him, so you're wrong right off the bat.

2. Hell is the place God is not

Two things here. Firstly, Hell as commonly represented by Christians is not
merely characterized by God's absence. There's certainly a lot more to the story than this, especially among the more literal types of Christians. Or are you now saying you're more liberal? I didn't have that sense of you at all?
Secondly, if God is everywhere, how can there be a place where God is not? If God's not there then He can't be omnipotent, can He? And doesn't the Bible somewhere speak of Hell as a place God prepared 'for the Devil and his angels?' Seems like you're equivocating here, in at least a couple of different ways.

3. thus they choose to go to hell because they don't want to be with God.

Two faulty, or at the least highly arugable premises-->very dubious conclusion.

 

[SabreWolf/SS]

Liberals sucking up to gays make me sick. The root problem are the liberals. If the liberals were to be put in their place things would go back to normal.

 

[geocajun]

Folks, lets tone it down a bit. If we cannot keep our posts civil on this matter, I am going to close the thread down.

geocajun
Philosophy & Morality Moderator
Team Love

 

[KnightOfChrist]

Liberals sucking up to gays make me sick. The root problem are the liberals. If the liberals were to be put in their place things would go back to normal.

Put in their place...?

And what do you mean go back to normal? Go back to when homosexuals didn't admit their preference, and hid it in anguish, and could receive no help?

Or do you mean back when homosexuals didn't exist? That would be a long, long, long time ago.

The problem is that too many people are completely against a sinner without taking time to listen or understand. You could at least have an inkling of what Catholic priests have, sir.

 

[The Bellman]

Liberals sucking up to gays make me sick. The root problem are the liberals. If the liberals were to be put in their place things would go back to normal.

What is liberals' "place"? And what is "normal", that we would go back to it if liberals were put in their place?

 

[SabreWolf/SS]

What is liberals' "place"? And what is "normal", that we would go back to it if liberals were put in their place?

The place is in the minority with no political clout and no voice. The normal is the time when the queers were in the closet afraid to come out. A time when conservatives ruled this country. You Bellman need to be run out of this country.

 

[PatrickM]

A time when conservatives ruled this country.

You mean a time when conservatives founded this country.

You Bellman need to be run out of this country.

Ah, the tolerant, standard "liberal" view. Only tolerant with those who agree with you, eh?